Create accountLogin

Recent searches

No recent searches

Search options

Not available on dice.camp.
dice.camp is one of the many independent Mastodon servers you can use to participate in the fediverse.
A Mastodon server for RPG folks to hang out and talk. Not owned by a billionaire.

Administered by:

Server stats:

1.8K
active users

dice.camp: AboutProfiles directoryPrivacy policy

Mastodon: AboutGet the appKeyboard shortcutsView source codev4.3.7

#casualisation

0 posts0 participants0 posts today
Public
UCU

University of Cambridge college supervisors have won an average pay rise worth 15% as a result of Cambridge UCU's 'Justice for College Supervisors' campaign. College supervisors lead undergraduate tutorials (or 'supervisions') yet many are precariously employed and paid an hourly rate.

Cambridge's colleges have now agreed new rates that will result in a pay rise worth 15% on average and over 20% for some supervisors.

ucu.org.uk/article/13613/Unive

www.ucu.org.ukUniversity of Cambridge college supervisors win 15% pay riseUniversity of Cambridge college supervisors have won an average pay rise worth 15%.
#UCU#UKHE#HigherEducation
Public
CWTS | Leiden University

👏 Congratulations to @AndreaRE_altibel Reyes Elizondo and Wolfgang Kaltenbrunner for their highly relevant paper on Research Integrity.

📰 Read the paper here 👉link.springer.com/article/10.1

SpringerLinkNavigating the Science System: Research Integrity and Academic Survival Strategies - Science and Engineering EthicsResearch Integrity (RI) is high on the agenda of both institutions and science policy. The European Union as well as national ministries of science have launched ambitious initiatives to combat misconduct and breaches of research integrity. Often, such initiatives entail attempts to regulate scientific behavior through guidelines that institutions and academic communities can use to more easily identify and deal with cases of misconduct. Rather than framing misconduct as a result of an information deficit, we instead conceptualize Questionable Research Practices (QRPs) as attempts by researchers to reconcile epistemic and social forms of uncertainty in knowledge production. Drawing on previous literature, we define epistemic uncertainty as the inherent intellectual unpredictability of scientific inquiry, while social uncertainty arises from the human-made conditions for scientific work. Our core argument—developed on the basis of 30 focus group interviews with researchers across different fields and European countries—is that breaches of research integrity can be understood as attempts to loosen overly tight coupling between the two forms of uncertainty. Our analytical approach is not meant to relativize or excuse misconduct, but rather to offer a more fine-grained perspective on what exactly it is that researchers want to accomplish by engaging in it. Based on the analysis, we conclude by proposing some concrete ways in which institutions and academic communities could try to reconcile epistemic and social uncertainties on a more collective level, thereby reducing incentives for researchers to engage in misconduct.
#ResearchIntegrity#QuestionableResearchPractices#precarity
Public
Andrea Reyes E (she/her)

The paper I wrote with Wolfgang Kaltenbrunner has been published in Science and Engineering Ethics: 'Navigating the Science System: Research Integrity and Academic Survival Strategies.'
The paper is our final output for the SOPs4RI project (H2020). It touches on systemic issues such as #precarity & #casualisation, and focuses on how researchers use QRPs to reconcile epistemic & social forms of uncertainty. #ResearchIntegrity

doi.org/10.1007/s11948-024-004

SpringerLinkNavigating the Science System: Research Integrity and Academic Survival Strategies - Science and Engineering EthicsResearch Integrity (RI) is high on the agenda of both institutions and science policy. The European Union as well as national ministries of science have launched ambitious initiatives to combat misconduct and breaches of research integrity. Often, such initiatives entail attempts to regulate scientific behavior through guidelines that institutions and academic communities can use to more easily identify and deal with cases of misconduct. Rather than framing misconduct as a result of an information deficit, we instead conceptualize Questionable Research Practices (QRPs) as attempts by researchers to reconcile epistemic and social forms of uncertainty in knowledge production. Drawing on previous literature, we define epistemic uncertainty as the inherent intellectual unpredictability of scientific inquiry, while social uncertainty arises from the human-made conditions for scientific work. Our core argument—developed on the basis of 30 focus group interviews with researchers across different fields and European countries—is that breaches of research integrity can be understood as attempts to loosen overly tight coupling between the two forms of uncertainty. Our analytical approach is not meant to relativize or excuse misconduct, but rather to offer a more fine-grained perspective on what exactly it is that researchers want to accomplish by engaging in it. Based on the analysis, we conclude by proposing some concrete ways in which institutions and academic communities could try to reconcile epistemic and social uncertainties on a more collective level, thereby reducing incentives for researchers to engage in misconduct.
ExploreLive feeds
About